MarApril 2004May
SMTWTFS
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
2345678

Site Stats

  • Posts - 475
  • Articles - 94
  • Comments - 577
  • Trackbacks - 231

News

All the news that's fit to print.

Disclaimer

  • These postings are provided
    "AS IS" with no warranties, and confer no rights.

Desktop Cam

  •  

My Flickr Photos

  •          

Post Categories

Article Categories

Archives

Image Galleries

My Bookshelf

In My CD Player

Blogs I Like To Read

Longhorn Links

MCE 2005 Sites

Newsgator Online Services

Sharepoint Links

Useful Links

Web Design Sites

Windows Server Links

Miscellany

  •             

  •                 

  •                 

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 #

Scoble addresses the issue of copyright and blogs.   It’s an interesting question.  Know that my thoughts here are just that – my thoughts.  I’m not even going to pretend to know what the heck I’m talking about.

A copyright is legal protection of a creator’s intellectual work – for example, literary works, a song, etc.  It’s set forth in title 17 of the U.S. Code.  I found all sorts of great information concerning Copyright Law at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html.  Under Copyright Law, the moment I publish an entry on this blog, for example, I am claiming ownership of that post and the intellectual work therein.  Other bloggers enjoy the same right.  The question then becomes, if I post someone else’s blog entry and then comment on that entry on this site, am I violating that person’s rights?  Technically, if I do so without first seeking their permission, the answer is yes.  And even if I do receive that person’s permission, I have no guarantee that they, too, have not violated someone else’s copyright – thereby putting me in violation as well.

Even just providing a link to someone else’s content may not be okay - http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html#What%20is%20a%20link.  In most cases, though, simply linking to another site is not a problem unless you do it inappropriately in a way that defames or otherwise violates the rights of the content owner.

“Fair Use” comes into play and complicates the situation.  In some cases, it might be okay to use someone else’s work as long as it is considered “Fair Use”.  The problem with “Fair Use” is that it’s ambiguous.  There’s no definition of exactly what it is and in most cases the definition of what constitutes “Fair Use” is subjective.  There’s a great overview of “Fair Use” and copyrights at http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht.  

Subscribing to the Creative Commons license (http://www.creativecommons.org) as Scoble suggests, might be the answer.  The problem is that unless everyone protects their content the same way, the whole thing comes crashing down.  If I am to post someone else’s entry, I first have to become a legal expert to make sure it’s okay first.  Always seeking the author’s permission, of course, is the safest route.  Wouldn’t that limit the fluidity of the Blogsphere and overcomplicate the sharing of ideas though?  I think so.

One thing is for sure – if the “Echo Chamber” that Scoble talks about in regards to blogging ever comes under fire from copyright attorneys, then we can pretty much write-off the phenomenon of blogging as we know it.  The whole idea is that I can find something interesting from someone and post that and my thoughts for others to view.  I don’t have the answer to this – I can only hope that my innocent reproduction of another’s thoughts (with proper credit to the author!) doesn’t put me on the wrong end of a lawsuit.  J 

As for the content on this site, most of it’s not worth reproducing.  You all know that - you’re reading this, after all.  If you want to reuse it, though, feel free to do so.  Just give me the proper credit for the good stuff and blame the bad stuff on someone else…

Sebastien Lambla wants Channel9 to be two-way syndication. I don't quite understand what he's getting at. Sounds a lot like Feedster to me. Go there, and you can build a "Channel9" query, subscribe to it, and then you'll see everyone who mentions Channel9, whether it's on Channel9 itself (since nearly everything on Channel9 is an RSS feed) or on your own blog, or even in my comment area here, since that's an RSS feed too.

And nothing is stopping you from building your own aggregator. For instance, look at Kunal's "MagicFolder" (AKA OutlookMT) -- that lets me aggregate the feeds I read into a single point (by dragging and dropping NewsGator items into a folder they get automatically posted to my experimental aggregated blog).

There is a downside to this aggregation, though. What about copyright law? That law says that anything I create is mine and I have legal control over it.

But, look at my experimental aggregation blog. I'm pretty sure I'm breaking at least the spirit of the copyright law, if not the letter of the law itself. I'm reposting people's creative works without their permission.

We need a new kind of "fair use" law which will let people like me build new kinds of aggregated services and blogs. How do we go about doing that? Creative Commons?

By the way, I'm cool with anyone reusing my content in whatever way they want (as long as it's on my blog -- if it's over on Channel9 Microsoft owns that content so gotta be more careful with that stuff).

If you're thinking of reusing Channel9 content on your own sites, just ask (by the way, we're answering the email sent to channel9@microsoft.com -- all that email is sent to our entire team). We'll figure out what we can and can't do as we go along.


[Scobleizer: Microsoft Geek Blogger]

posted @ 4:32 PM

I completely agree that something must be done concerning the fact that some software companies choose to bury “spyware” or “adware” in their software.  I have long lost track of the number of times a friend or family member has called me with weird PC issues that end up being caused by these poorly written hidden programs.

Most of these companies disclose the presence of this software in the EULA (End-User License Agreement) for their application.  The problem is that no one ever reads the EULA – ever.  Regulating the disclosure of this type of information, though, is not the answer.  In the U.S., there is a great deal of regulatory control by the government on the food and drug industry.  It’s relatively easy for them to mandate what the label should look like, where it should be placed, etc.  How do you do this with software?  Do you slap it on the box – and if so, how do you do the same thing for web-based applications or software that is downloaded rather than purchased in a store?  And how do you control and regulate this across geopolitical boundaries?

The last thing we need, IMO, is another government agency dictating to private industry how it should package and sell its product to customers.  Just how would this be enforced, anyway?

I am quite content to allow free-market economics to do its magic and allow consumers to vote with their wallet.  If a company practices these techniques in an effort to extract information from their customers without their consent, people won’t support them.  They’ll eventually get the message when their revenues shrink.  The issue then becomes:  most people don’t have a clue (and don’t want to deal with knowing) which software programs are doing this.  Most consumers expect their PC experience to be like their TV experience – you turn it on, you check your mail, edit some digital photos, surf the web and then shut it off. 

How does the software industry, then, educate and protect consumers?  Well, most people have a virus scanner installed on their PC – a forward-thinking A-V vendor would do themselves (and their customers) a big favor by incorporating technology similar to that found in Ad-aware (http://www.lavasoftusa.com/) into their products.  The infrastructure for detecting these tactics and alerting the user is already there in their scanning engine and signature files.  I’d pay an extra $5 for my anti-virus software if it included this handy functionality.

There was an article about manditory software labeling. Do you think this is a good thing? Should all software declare, as does the food industry, what it contains? For example should the software tell you that it is recording your keystrokes, or that it collects personal information. What should the label contain. Is it the same for all types of software or does it vary by type, games vs business apps for example.

Is there value in having a standard easy to read label for consumers?

[Paul Stubbs]

posted @ 3:41 PM

Newsgator is all over this “RSS Thing”.  I’m very impressed with the aggressiveness with which they are attacking this space.  They are way ahead of the game here…

I've been using this for a few weeks and it's dammed cool. Check your RSS feeds while being a couch potato using Windows Media Center 2004. It even streams videos from feeds such as Channel 9.


The posts on this weblog are provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confer no rights. The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in any way.

[shahine.com/omar/]

posted @ 3:47 AM